What the fuck? Noooooo, don't fuck up hexbear with reddit power-mod (I guess "power-admin"?) type shit!
It's also worth noting that each frame is an opportunity for player inputs to be registered by the game, so for any sort of game where tight reactions are an important part of gameplay (which is many -- particularly fighting and other competitive games), higher framerate can directly translate to more responsive controls.
I can always tell that these developments are coming from China, even without reading the article and even if it's not in the headline. Then I read the article, it says "in China," and I'm like 
that's right.
Bernie is always going to be a frustrating figure to me because, for all his many increasingly obvious and glaring faults, it was in large part thanks to him that I got into left-wing thought at all. I can't say I'm a fan of his at this point, but I'll kind of always owe him for getting me to start abandoning capitalism.
You pick one! Jesus Christ it was your post in the first place that lead to this whole comment chain! You can't even pick your own goddamn bullet point? You have got to be fucking with me dawg!
Holy fuck seriously, what orgs are you a part of so I know not to have anything to fucking do with them, then you can talk about "chasing people away from communism."
Hell, try elaborating that point even. How do you think we are chasing people from communism? Are our shit-posts just too shitty?
We literally do not have downvotes, hence all the replies trying to get somebody to make an actual point.
How can people have this sort of smug self-confidence in their beliefs if they cannot articulate a single point even when directly invited to do so? Literally one of you just make a point and then give a "why". Preferably make the "why" better than "because I received any negative reception for my vague but obviously antagonistic comment."
Should the people you've gone out of your way to antagonize take you seriously if you actively refuse to even articulate a criticism (even when directly invited to multiple times) and just post vague smug shit?
And look, for all the whining about "dog-piling" and "swarming" that people make about our instance, you can have replies to your comments, or you can have downvotes where nobody expresses an actual criticism and nobody gains anything.
Do you take any negative reception to your comments as proof of whatever point you are trying to make? If you have a criticism to make in a public forum, shouldn't you reasonably expect a response that might likewise be critical?
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: Who was right?
In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit's unarmed party didn't survive. Allende's democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the d'etente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
Anarcho-libs / "Libertarian Leftists" love movements that maintained their moral purity by failing. As movements they're relatively easy to defend. Because they never meaningfully took power, they're never made to deal with the baggage of a real government that exists in a hostile capitalist world. Forever morally pristine and beautiful, in failure and death.
I agree. I think for a lot of liberals, they're liberals because it's a path of least resistance for them as a political identity. The chuds' win this election season makes it more appealing than ever to just get on board with Trumpism.
Where can I see breakdowns by county with full third party coverage?
Sucks there's no site to see reviews of IDF soldiers they've killed in Lebanon.
Literally just telling voters to stay gone lol. Fucking losers.
I'm not happy the chuds won, but I am very happy the libs ate shit, you know what I mean?
They're terrible, two-faced little shits and they way they act like they have this unassailable moral high-ground has always aggravated me.
Cussing out zionists on mainstream social media is so frustrating because if you're even half as edgy as those evil creeps, your comment gets taken down and / or you're banned.
POV: You're homeless and about to be robbed by the Governor of California
deleted by creator
I was going to express sympathy for having to serve in a chud government, but reading the comments and learning she's a zionist causes me to lose all sympathy, and I am now eager to laugh at her misery.
Yeah, I thought / hoped the democraps would at least keep the congress, but they sucked too much even for that. I'm really not looking forward to a fully chud government.
I've never enjoyed the James Bond movies and have always specifically found them boring. And no, it's not even that I can't enjoy "problematic content" or stuff that's basically enemy propaganda, I just think they're really fucking lame when I watch them.